Highview Parking Ltd Claim Form - Defence Help - DCB LEAGAL,

Coupon-mad

But it looks very much like PCN 1 & PCN 2 are completely different in their front page wording.  One is POFA and one isn't.  Even from those cropped images it's fairly easy to see the wording is very different.

What about the 3rd one?

Don't show us the NTKs and ask us to tell you!  We want you to understand and see it for yourself, confidently.

Compare all three front pages to my NTK pictures thread.  Which I won't link because it's found in a few seconds by looking on my profile (among my threads), and it's linked already in the First post of the NEWBIES FAQS thread.

  

louisnorman

Coupon-mad said:

But it looks very much like PCN 1 & PCN 2 are completely different in their front page wording.  One is POFA and one isn't.  Even from those cropped images it's fairly easy to see the wording is very different.

What about the 3rd one?

Don't show us the NTKs and ask us to tell you!  We want you to understand and see it for yourself, confidently.

Compare all three front pages to my NTK pictures thread.  Which I won't link because it's found in a few seconds by looking on my profile (among my threads), and it's linked already in the First post of the NEWBIES FAQS thread.

  

Thanks for your help.

I am really confused about POFA worded. Actually English is not my native language.

Due to privacy reasons, I have not attached personal information. My cut & paste skills are poor and it’s a bit messy. PCN 1, PCN 2 & PCN 3 were attached in my previous post.  I'm sorry they look so disorganised (PCN 2, PCN 3 & PCN 1).

I will try to find and compare the front pages to your NTK pictures thread.

louisnorman

PCN 1 is PARKING CHARGE
PCN 2 is PARKING CHARGE REMINDER
PCN 3 is LEGAL ACTION PENDING

It is really difficult to identify. Compare with other post image, I think PCN 1 is POFA worded.  PCN 2 & 3 are similar, but different from PCN 1, I'm not sure. 

Coupon-mad

So you have only had one PCN and it was POFA worded. Later letters are not relevant.

Le_Kirk

Should the OP not be using the CEL v Chan PLUS Akande?  @Coupon-mad are you going to change the @hharry100 defence to refer to both the recent cases as per the list in my judgments link?

louisnorman

I found this short  Defence apply my real case.  Can I use this one? Or should I put some the following paragraphs in the standard defence or hharry 100 defence? What is Akande? Thanks in advance.  Really headache.

Le_Kirk said:

Should the OP not be using the CEL v Chan PLUS Akande?  @Coupon-mad are you going to change the @hharry100 defence to refer to both the recent cases as per the list in my judgments link?

Coupon-mad said:

So you have only had one PCN and it was POFA worded. Later letters are not relevant.

DEFENCE

1. **The facts as known to the Defendant**:

   1.1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number [insert vehicle reg. no.].  

   1.2. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the alleged contravention date of 03/01/2024  

   1.3. The Defendant moved house recently and sent the updated V5C logbook information to the DVLA in early January 2024, with the V5C officially issued on 12/01/2024  

   1.4. The Defendant did not receive any Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or communication from the Claimant until a debt collection letter from DCBL was received on 20/03/2024, dated 18/03/2024, regarding the contravention.  

   1.5. The Defendant made an online appeal on 21/03/2024, explaining the Defendant had not received the original PCN due to a change of address and confirming that the Defendant was not the driver at the time of the contravention. The Claimant rejected the appeal, citing an expired appeal period, and instructed the Defendant to contact the debt collection agency DCBL.

2. **Non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)**:

   2.1. The Claimant has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, which must be satisfied in order to hold the registered keeper liable for the parking charge.  

   2.2. Under PoFA 2012, the Notice to Keeper (NTK) must be served within 14 days of the alleged contravention if no Notice to Driver was issued at the scene. The NTK serves the same function as the PCN in this case, as the PCN explicitly requested the Defendant, as the registered keeper, to provide the driver’s name and address.  

   2.3. The contravention occurred on 03/01/2024 ,  and the Claimant’s NTK (also referred to as the PCN) is dated 11/01/2024, but was not received by the Defendant at the Defendant’s correct address. The Defendant moved house recently and the updated V5C was issued on 12/01/2024, after the postal submission in early January 2024. The NTK was therefore sent to an old address, and the Defendant never received it.

   2.4. As a result, the NTK was not served to the Defendant's correct address within the 14-day timeframe as required by PoFA 2012. This failure to comply with the statutory timeframe invalidates any attempt to transfer liability to the Defendant as the registered keeper.

3. **No Keeper Liability**:

   3.1. The Defendant was not the driver on the day of the alleged contravention, and the Claimant has not provided any evidence identifying the driver.  

   3.2. Under PoFA 2012, the Claimant can only transfer liability to the registered keeper if they comply with all the statutory requirements for serving the NTK.  

   3.3. Since the NTK was not served within the required timeframe to the correct address, the Defendant, as the registered keeper, cannot be held liable for the parking charge.

4. **Failure to Provide Evidence of PCN Issuance and SAR Delays**:

   4.1. The Defendant emailed both the Claimant and DCBL on 18/04/2024, requesting evidence of the PCN issuance, as it had not been received at either the old or the new address.  

   4.2. DCBL responded on 26/04/2024, attaching copies of the PCNs (dated 11/1/2024, 29/01/2024, and 15/02/2024). These copies were provided well after the appeal period had expired and were the first instances that the Defendant saw the PCNs.  

   4.3. On 29/04/2024, the Claimant responded to the Defendant's Subject Access Request (SAR) by asking for additional information to validate the request. While acknowledging that completing a form was not a legal requirement, the Claimant delayed processing the SAR until identity validation was completed on 22/05/2024. The Claimant then stated the data would be provided by 21/06/2024. This unnecessary delay in processing the SAR has obstructed the Defendant’s ability to access vital information regarding the claim in a timely manner.

5. **Unfair Handling of Appeal Process**:

   5.1. The Defendant made a good-faith appeal on 21/03/2024, explaining the change of address, non-receipt of the original PCN, and confirming that they were not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.

   5.2. The Claimant improperly refused to consider the appeal, citing that the appeal period had expired, despite the Defendant never receiving the original PCN. Instead of considering the appeal fairly, the Claimant escalated the matter to debt collection, denying the Defendant a fair process.

6. **Lack of Transparency**:

   - Despite the Defendant’s repeated requests for evidence and a full SAR, the PPC has provided only the PCN and failed to deliver a full account of all personal data held, as required under GDPR. This lack of transparency further obstructed the Defendant's ability to challenge the claim.

7. **Conclusion**:

   7.1. The Claimant has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of PoFA 2012 to establish keeper liability. As such, the Defendant cannot be held liable for the parking charge.  

   7.2. The Defendant was not the driver, and the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence identifying the driver.  

   7.3. The Defendant respectfully requests the court to strike out the claim due to the Claimant’s non-compliance with PoFA 2012 and their failure to conduct a fair and reasonable appeal process.

Coupon-mad

How can these dates be right if you told us there's only one PCN (and the other letters were reminders)?

Are these facts all true?


"   4.2. DCBL responded on 26/04/2024, attaching copies of the PCNs (dated 11/1/2024, 29/01/2024, and 15/02/2024). These copies were provided well after the appeal period had expired and were the first instances that the Defendant saw the PCNs.  

   4.3. On 29/04/2024, the Claimant responded to the Defendant's Subject Access Request (SAR) by asking for additional information to validate the request. While acknowledging that completing a form was not a legal requirement, the Claimant delayed processing the SAR until identity validation was completed on 22/05/2024. The Claimant then stated the data would be provided by 21/06/2024. This unnecessary delay in processing the SAR has obstructed the Defendant’s ability to access vital information regarding the claim in a timely manner.

5. **Unfair Handling of Appeal Process**:

   5.1. The Defendant made a good-faith appeal on 21/03/2024, explaining the change of address, non-receipt of the original PCN, and confirming that they were not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention."

louisnorman

I'm sorry, I confused that 1 PCN with 3 letters PCN (1st is original dated 11/1/2024, 2nd is reminder dated 29/01/2024, and 3rd is legal action pending dated 15/02/2024).  For me, it's a lot of information I need to read. If some information mislead you. I apologies.

Refer your question : Are these facts all true? The answer is yes.  

4.2 1case PCN, first time saw the original PCN
4.3 Yes, 
5.1 I did online appeal immediately when I received the 1st Debt Collection Letter from DBCL , also got email from noreply@nexusplatform.co.uk that confirm the Appellant details: moved and address changed, definitely wasn't driving that day. 

***I have All Timeline of Events and Key Correspondence record*** 


Anything wrong with the Defence? Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.Coupon-mad said:

How can these dates be right if you told us there's only one PCN (and the other letters were reminders)?

Are these facts all true?


"   4.2. DCBL responded on 26/04/2024, attaching copies of the PCNs (dated 11/1/2024, 29/01/2024, and 15/02/2024). These copies were provided well after the appeal period had expired and were the first instances that the Defendant saw the PCNs.  

   4.3. On 29/04/2024, the Claimant responded to the Defendant's Subject Access Request (SAR) by asking for additional information to validate the request. While acknowledging that completing a form was not a legal requirement, the Claimant delayed processing the SAR until identity validation was completed on 22/05/2024. The Claimant then stated the data would be provided by 21/06/2024. This unnecessary delay in processing the SAR has obstructed the Defendant’s ability to access vital information regarding the claim in a timely manner.

5. **Unfair Handling of Appeal Process**:

   5.1. The Defendant made a good-faith appeal on 21/03/2024, explaining the change of address, non-receipt of the original PCN, and confirming that they were not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention."

Coupon-mad

4.2 is wrong then. There's only one PCN. Reminders are irrelevant.

The defence should just be like any other DCB Legal defence which is usually a matter of adding just one paragraph.

Coupon-mad

Le_Kirk said:

Should the OP not be using the CEL v Chan PLUS Akande?  @Coupon-mad are you going to change the @hharry100 defence to refer to both the recent cases as per the list in my judgments link?

I guess I could just show a URL link within the defence instead.